https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105214 The High Court held that a Magistrate at Jaipur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under section 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, because the obligation to deliver share certificates and the place where the cause of action arose could confer jurisdiction; an objection based only on the company's registered office was insufficient at the threshold. It further treated the alleged non-compliance as a continuing offence, since section 113(2) penalises each day of default, and declined to reject the complaint as time-barred. Finding that compliance, service, and the role of the company and its officers required evidence, the Court refused to quash the proceedings under section 482 CrPC. en-us Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105214 The High Court held that a Magistrate at Jaipur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under section 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, because the obligation to deliver share certificates and the place where the cause of action arose could confer jurisdiction; an objection based only on the company's registered office was insufficient at the threshold. It further treated the alleged non-compliance as a continuing offence, since section 113(2) penalises each day of default, and declined to reject the complaint as time-barred. Finding that compliance, service, and the role of the company and its officers required evidence, the Court refused to quash the proceedings under section 482 CrPC. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105214